HowdyHas anyone been able to compare prints from the 2400 to prints from the HP 9180.I am interested in switching to the HP 9180 for the inks archival quality.Travers[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Travers, that wouldn't be a good reason to switch IMO. The 2400 is also a pigmented printer. There may be other reasons you would want to switch, but I doubt archivablity would be worthwhile for making the switch. I print with a 2200--an older pigmented printer---and have ordered the 3800. I considered both the 2400 and the 9180 but want the larger media size and do like the K3 inks (which is what the 2400 has---which was actually what I was planning to upgrade to for the mono capabilities and the K3 inks, but when the 9180 came out--and then the 3800, I had to reconsider).

Vincent at Photo-i.co.uk is currently reviewing the 9180. I do not know if he has directly compared them yet. You might want to check it out.

From what I've seen comparing my 9180 prints to prints I've purchased that are printed on a 4800 (I'm not sure what the brandenburg print was printed with) is that the print quality is comparable. But that is not a direct comparison of the same image printed on different printers. So take it for what it is worth and see what Vincent is up to.

Travers, that wouldn't be a good reason to switch IMO. The 2400 is also a pigmented printer. There may be other reasons you would want to switch, but I doubt archivablity would be worthwhile for making the switch. I print with a 2200--an older pigmented printer---and have ordered the 3800. I considered both the 2400 and the 9180 but want the larger media size and do like the K3 inks (which is what the 2400 has---which was actually what I was planning to upgrade to for the mono capabilities and the K3 inks, but when the 9180 came out--and then the 3800, I had to reconsider).

I have to disagree. The difference in lightfastness on HP pigment inks doubles behind glass numbers, triples bare bulb testing. That is not insignifcant at all. There is some gamut given up to do this but the gamut that remains is enough for most applications or imaging needs.If we take into account the terms and or metric of this lightfastness it is much better in fact to have exposed prints hanging on walls than Eposn K3.

The color gamut of the B9180 is smaller than that of Epson K3, and I find the build quality of the printer to be pretty poor. I also can't buy ink for the bloody thing! Isn't this business all about selling ink & paper?

The Epson 3800 would be my suggestion, especially if you do any amount of B&W. The Advanced B&W option in the driver rivals anything I've seen coming out of the B9180 (or the Z2100 for that matter).

Don't' get me wrong, I do like my 2400 (Amazing prints) but light fastness of the prints is very important to me and it seems that HP has the answer. Though I imagine epson will respond to HP shortly. K4? So maybe I should hold off for awhile ! Is it true hp has a smaller color gamut then the epson. Makes sense if it does.

TraversSF,CA

Does anybody know where I can get the ICC profiles (soft proof) for the HP 9180. I searched HP site but can't find them. Also sent away for the CD with ICC but it has been over three weeks.

I have both printers (2400 and 9180) and have been comparing them for almost a month. In order to get the 9180 prints to look as good as the 2400 prints I have to have rez up the file to 600ppi and print at MaxDPI with the 9180 - then the prints look basically the same. The HP is a good deal slower printing than the 2400, and of course you have to send it those large files. I do prefer the HP's paper tray, although I find the HP is a lot more work to keep running - the 2400 will fire up and print with little fuss ever while the HP goes through all sorts of cleanings and other nonsense - and almost always has warnings flashing up on my computer screen (very annoying). I also have an Epson 4800 and HP 130nr, and just ordered the Canon ipf 5000. I wish the new HP big printers coming out soon would be sold without all the built-in color management stuff since I have no use for it and hate to pay for it twice (already do my own profiles with EyeOne). It is good to finally see some competition and I'm sure it will make for even better prints down the road...

I have to disagree. The difference in lightfastness on HP pigment inks doubles behind glass numbers, triples bare bulb testing. That is not insignifcant at all. There is some gamut given up to do this but the gamut that remains is enough for most applications or imaging needs.If we take into account the terms and or metric of this lightfastness it is much better in fact to have exposed prints hanging on walls than Eposn K3.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Neil, I won't disagree with you on these points, but 48 years unframed hanging seems sufficient for most needs (Willhelm's test of Premium Luster for 2400). I can't even imagine an unframed photo being displayed for more than a couple of years. For the papers I use 61 and 71 years framed/under glass (not UV) are also sufficient. I won't outlive my prints--nor am I really 'collected' or in museums and its hard to imagine people looking at framed prints 250 years from now of the average photographer.

Still, if the 9180 were a 17" printer I would add it to my list to consider for reasons other than its ink's archival qualities. I am waiting for my sample prints from HP and Epson (and Canon) to have at least something in hand to compare (monos in particular). The HP 17' printer to come in 07 won't be in contention because of the high cost unfortunately.

Neil, I won't disagree with you on these points, but 48 years unframed hanging seems sufficient for most needs (Willhelm's test of Premium Luster for 2400). I can't even imagine an unframed photo being displayed for more than a couple of years. For the papers I use 61 and 71 years framed/under glass (not UV) are also sufficient. I won't outlive my prints--nor am I really 'collected' or in museums and its hard to imagine people looking at framed prints 250 years from now of the average photographer.

Still, if the 9180 were a 17" printer I would add it to my list to consider for reasons other than its ink's archival qualities. I am waiting for my sample prints from HP and Epson (and Canon) to have at least something in hand to compare (monos in particular). The HP 17' printer to come in 07 won't be in contention because of the high cost unfortunately.

The problem for me and many others of lightfastness years is in it's ideal way the rating of mean fade across color (solids only) doesn't say much about real world image fading. Henry Wilhelm is working on this as well but nothing is or will be published immediately. What I did and can say is the HP vivera pigments let you with all certainly short of ozone or other gaseous pollutants display prints without glass for quite a few years without any visible fading. The same is just not true of Epson. In fact with Premier Art Shield on canvas or matte on the HP and your looking at what Epson is doing behind glass. It's not a little difference but a huge one that deserves recognition.The actual numbers of lightfastness should be deduced to being just a metric, not actual years outside of lab control tests.Yet don't get me wrong the Epson 3800 is a very capable printer with nice image quality and a decent entry price. It just doesn't stack up for gallery or museum prints though compared to HP. Nor does Canon.

The color gamut of the B9180 is smaller than that of Epson K3, and I find the build quality of the printer to be pretty poor. I also can't buy ink for the bloody thing! Isn't this business all about selling ink & paper?

The Epson 3800 would be my suggestion, especially if you do any amount of B&W. The Advanced B&W option in the driver rivals anything I've seen coming out of the B9180 (or the Z2100 for that matter).

Yes the ink supply leaves egg on the face! Green eggs and ham Sam I am.This should be fully remedied in the next three weeks.The HP pigments in the 8 colour inks are narrower in the shadows, and in the lights have some areas less saturated than Epson K3 but some areas with more light saturated such as greens for leaves and grass, sky blues, azure water etc. So it's not quite right to say globally a smaller gamut , but better to qualify. The choice of double or triple the lightfastness was a choice the restricts the gamut with the 8 ink set. Will Epson go for gamut or for lightfastness for the next series ? Probably gamut, but you may know more than me.I couldn't be happier about the design of the 9180. The QA is not up to snuff , but the build quality design wise is exactly waht I like in a printer. Nothing superflou , simple and robust.Yet the optical features and built in calibration largerly pass any other printer in it's range. I actually would have preferred a Z series to be like the 9180 but oh well. Maybe the 9180 should grow up fast!

I have both printers (2400 and 9180) and have been comparing them for almost a month. In order to get the 9180 prints to look as good as the 2400 prints I have to have rez up the file to 600ppi and print at MaxDPI with the 9180 - then the prints look basically the same. The HP is a good deal slower printing than the 2400, and of course you have to send it those large files. I do prefer the HP's paper tray, although I find the HP is a lot more work to keep running - the 2400 will fire up and print with little fuss ever while the HP goes through all sorts of cleanings and other nonsense - and almost always has warnings flashing up on my computer screen (very annoying). I also have an Epson 4800 and HP 130nr, and just ordered the Canon ipf 5000. I wish the new HP big printers coming out soon would be sold without all the built-in color management stuff since I have no use for it and hate to pay for it twice (already do my own profiles with EyeOne). It is good to finally see some competition and I'm sure it will make for even better prints down the road...

The Epson drivers add sharpening. On images that are within range of the print size it definately looks good. On prints at 24" or bigger it is too much. There is NO sharpening going on in the 9180. It is an option for future driver releases though. If you feel strongly let HP know, and it could be included in the driver, maybe even as a user option.

The Epson does most of it's work in the printer. Epson have really mastered this better than the others. So the printers are slow but the screening, etc are all done in the printer which makes all the difference in the world. If Canon had Epson's onboard ASIC's thye would be printing faster than you could shoot!Just to let you know, max detail on the 9180 is not only 16 bit screening, but also 4800 true dpi.If you print with Epson at their max setting it should come out to more or less the same speed I thought?

Never heard that about the Epson drivers adding sharpening - that is really interesting. I wonder what the Pixel Mafia guys have to say about that? I'm not up on the screening and dpi stuff and not interested in following it, I just know how the prints look when they come out of the printer - that is the only detail I focus on. I always print with the Epsons on high speed, 1200dpi, and they are quite a bit faster than the 9180 at Max DPI, which is what I have to do in order to match the quality of the Epson prints. It will be fun to compare the Canon ipf5000 prints when that printer arrives here in a week.

The only HP that I am interested in is the 3100 since the 2100 seems to be a bust for my work (no better than an Epson 7800 since I don't have need to switch inks). The 3100 test prints with the new satin paper look very nice, but what will be a true test will be to use that paper with all three brand printers and see how they compare. Certainly we don't have a perfect printer yet but so much better each year for sure, and far better than wet darkroom...

Just an update to this old but interesting thread, Wilhelm has rated the 3800 B&W prints on Epson Ultrasmooth Fine Art Paper at over 300 years (framed w/UV glass) 205 years (framed w/standard glass) and 138 years displayed and unframed.

Count me as another one who doesn't expect anyone to be displaying my work even 40 years from now.

Just an update to this old but interesting thread, Wilhelm has rated the 3800 B&W prints on Epson Ultrasmooth Fine Art Paper at over 300 years (framed w/UV glass) 205 years (framed w/standard glass) and 138 years displayed and unframed.

Count me as another one who doesn't expect anyone to be displaying my work even 40 years from now.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The problem with this approach, is that the "Wilhelm years" do not take reciprocity failure into account (personal communication from Joseph Holmes). The factor to account for reciprocity failure may vary quite a bit, but on average is probably about 2.5 (again, per Holmes). This means that 100 "Wilhelm years" may more accurately be classified as 40 actual years. If that is true (and I have no personal knowledge about this either way), the more the better. I think that "Wilhelm years" are a good way to make RELATIVE comparisons of how lightfast a paper and ink combination may turn out to be in real life.